673 F.3d 1013
9th Cir.2012Background
- The CNMI and Governor Fitial appeal a district court judgment in a § 1983 suit by Emerenciana Peter-Palican alleging her removal as Special Assistant to the Governor for Women's Affairs violated Article III, § 22 of the CNMI Constitution.
- The district court held that § 22 protects removal only for cause and that a perpetual protection extends beyond the appointing governor, creating a due process property interest and an implied private damages remedy under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874A.
- The district court reinstated Peter-Palican to a government position and awarded damages for an implied constitutional tort, while recognizing official-capacity claims were not actionable for monetary relief under § 1983.
- The Ninth Circuit initially stayed final resolution and certified questions to the CNMI Supreme Court, deferring further proceedings pending its answer, or resolution if the CNMI Supreme Court declines certification.
- The certified questions ask (1) whether § 22 protects against removal without cause indefinitely or only during the appointing governor’s term, and (2) whether CNMI law implies a private damages remedy for § 22 violations.
- The panel declined to decide the CNMI issues and instead certified to CNMI Supreme Court to interpret its constitution and any implied damages remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of Article III, §22 | Peter-Palican contends §22 bars removal without cause beyond the appointing governor's term. | Commonwealth argues ambiguity; §22 likely protects only during the appointing governor's term. | Ambiguity exists; CNMI Supreme Court should interpret §22. |
| Private damages remedy for §22 violation | Restatement §874A permits implying a private damages action for constitutional violations. | No private right of action is implied by §22 absent CNMI Supreme Court interpretation. | CNMI Supreme Court should decide whether a private damages remedy exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (U.S. 2005) (property interests defined by state law for due process)
- Walls v. Cent. Contra Costa Transit Auth., 653 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2011) (public employees may have property interests in continued employment)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1980) (government can terminate for political beliefs in certain policymaking roles)
- Rawlins v. Levy Court of Kent County, 235 A.2d 840 (Del. 1967) (term of office generally expires with governing body’s term)
- Juan v. N. Mar. I., 2001 MP 18 (N. Mar. I. 2001) (Restatement §874A cited but not decided)